Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Lead Game Designer on Everquest Next Debunks Non-Consent PVP

1235712

Comments

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by Nanfoodle
    Originally posted by Riposte.This
    I don't know why there are so many threads on this topic. Go play EQ1 and EQ2 and you will see what the pvp will be like, or at least a general decision.

    I played them both and I dont agree. I think there will be some type of PvP added to EQN thats deeper then just a tomb of discord and PvP servers. With modern MMOs where they are PvP is really a great time killer and if you dont have it, people play games that do. To really be a next gen MMO I think EQN needs PvP with some depth. 

    I really do believe that there are going to be lessons taken from EVE.

    Challenge EVE and AA? Could be. I would try it.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • HellidolHellidol TACOMA, WAPosts: 405Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by TheJoda
    Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.

    yup.....

    image
  • XssivXssiv Haskell, NJPosts: 359Member
    Originally posted by Ehliya

    Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.

    In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight.  Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.

    So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"

    In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers.  Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."

    I have to disagree.   I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"

     

    We play on PvP servers because it's a much more unpredictable and immersive experience when compared to the PvE server rule set.    

    Granted, it's certainly not for everyone but to say that PvP'ers only like open world PvP because they can gank "easy targets" is simply a false generalization. 

     

     

     

     

  • RamanadjinnRamanadjinn Huntsville, ALPosts: 1,365Member Uncommon

    I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."

    Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!

  • KhayotixKhayotix Somewhere, FLPosts: 220Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

    I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."

    Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!

    I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.

    image
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Posts: 5,447Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

    I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."

    Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!

    I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.

    Your taking a leap in a direction that has no proof. What was said could be taken 100 ways.


    =-D Only on a forum can optimism be called bad and pessimism the good thing =-D Welcome to the internet and forums. 


  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 775Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by Ramanadjinn

    I was upset to log in and see that the PVP in this game was "debunked."

    Thankfully I read the OP and realized nothing at all has actually happened or been said!

    I Never said PVP was debunked, I said Non Consent PvP was debunked, and it was, regardless of what anyone wants to believe the question was only in one context and the answer was only in the context of the question.

    True enough. Open world PvP is likely still on the table, but it would be kinda stupid of them to force people into it if they don't want it. They might have a PvP server for that, but it seems the genre has been sorta moving away from servers with alternate rule sets lately. Or maybe I just haven't been paying enough attention.

  • sonicbrewsonicbrew Sparkill, NYPosts: 511Member
    And the PR train strikes again! Now even flooding over from Twitter. All this hype and buzz over known nothingness. How sweet free advertising is hey SOE? Now give a mighty golf clap to all your new age gaming lemmings <drum roll>

    “Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.” ~ Italian proverb

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by Xssiv
    Originally posted by Ehliya

    Well, the reason many (not all) PVPers want everyone together playing open-world is so they have plenty of easy targets.

    In situations like early UO, the "hard core PVPers" tended not to seek each other out to fight.  Instead they went for the most gain at least risk, e.g. the crafters, RPers, explorers - basically people less able to defend themselves.

    So anytime you hear "give us open world full loot PVP!" you can translate that as "give us plenty of easy kills!"

    In games like Conan, on the open PVP servers, it was common to see level 60's and higher roaming the starting areas mowing down defenseless newcomers.  Any game company in their right mind that wants to attract customers will avoid that sort of "PVP."

    I have to disagree.   I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"

     

    We play on PvP servers because it's a much more unpredictable and immersive experience when compared to the PvE server rule set.    

    Granted, it's certainly not for everyone but to say that PvP'ers only like open world PvP because they can gank "easy targets" is simply a false generalization. 

     

     

     

    You highlighted a section of the post but didn't answer or even make a point against what it was actually saying. You posted why you play on a pvp server not why you want pve players to be forced to be on that server with you. No one was ever questioning why people pick a pvp server. It's why do pve players HAVE to be on there with you.

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by TheJoda
    Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.

    It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.

    I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.

    No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.

    That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.

  • dandurindandurin Santa Clara, CAPosts: 493Member
    Originally posted by Ecoces

    ....

     however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.

     

    I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?

    I know what you're getting at, and it's a valid criticism of many, but at the same time, to be fair, "tacked-on" PVP IS decidedly suckier than designed-in PVP.

     

    For instance, ArcheAge is a game that both intends to have very little random ganking due to prohibitive punishment, yet PVP is built into the game to such an extent that a "PVE server" really wouldn't make any sense.

     

    PVE players don't have their fun ruined by legal ganking, but by de facto ganking.  Any system in which one is not constantly looking over their shoulder, regardless of why, should remain fun.

  • djazzydjazzy louisville, COPosts: 3,578Member
    That statement could mean anything
  • minttunatorminttunator ViimsiPosts: 131Member
    The thread title is misleading, he didn't confirm anything one way or the other. In fact, the designer's response could be read to mean the opposite of what the OP assumes if we consider non-consensual PVP a good design decision. :)
  • bcbullybcbully Westland, MIPosts: 8,273Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ecoces

    ....

     however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.

     

    I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?

     

    It's like you people think that in a FFA game everyone is running around killing everything. 

     

  • furbansfurbans Tinbucktwo, IAPosts: 965Member
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by TheJoda
    Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.

    It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.

    I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.

    No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.

    That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.

    It's not typical PR BS, it's actually the smart answer.  The great unveiling is on Aug 2nd and any game cannot and will not comment on any design that will have people go raging all over the internet, and extreme n intense n ridiculous raging there will be when this hot topic is finally answered.  No one isn't going to confirm nor deny any game mechanics until they do their press release or whatever PR event that they reveal it in.

  • KyleranKyleran Tampa, FLPosts: 19,988Member Uncommon

    Anyone else see the irony of a SOE Developer, famous for SWG and some others making the statement that they avoid making bad design decisions?

    I'd say as a company they are right up there at the top in this department.

     

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
    "I don't have one life, I have many lives" - Grunty
    Still currently "subscribed" to EVE, and only EVE!!!
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon

  • furbansfurbans Tinbucktwo, IAPosts: 965Member
    Originally posted by bcbully
    Originally posted by Ecoces

    ....

     however thats not good enough for the hardcore PVPers, apparently everyone has to be involved in the FFA PVP or else its not fun for them i guess.

     

    I have heard the excuses of "oh the games suck if the PVP is just tacked on" so that should mean that those pure PVE'rs and Consensual PVPers fun should be ruined because of bad FFA PVP design?

     

    It's like you people think that in a FFA game everyone is running around killing everything. 

     

    Not everyone does this but all or most players that solo or really don't know the game get harassed by the players that do.  It comes back to that old saying of the few fuck it up for the rest.

  • _redruM__redruM_ Winnipeg, MBPosts: 34Member
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by TheJoda
    Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.

    It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.

    I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.

    You could also read it as "We avoid bad design decisions, but we know what we're doing and we don't believe this is one, so suck it up".

    Anyway, I'd be disappointed if you're right.

  • furbansfurbans Tinbucktwo, IAPosts: 965Member
    Originally posted by minttunator
    The thread title is misleading, he didn't confirm anything one way or the other. In fact, the designer's response could be read to mean the opposite of what the OP assumes if we consider non-consensual PVP a good design decision. :)

    The reason for the vagueness is simple.  They are not going to confirm or deny anything that will have people raging until they make a press release and show the system the have going for EQN as it can hurt their marketing.  It's really that simple. 

  • YamotaYamota LondonPosts: 6,620Member
    Originally posted by furbans
    Originally posted by Yamota
    Originally posted by Khayotix
    Originally posted by TheJoda
    Not much really said at all.......You can read that 100's different ways.

    It can only be read in the context of the question being answered. That is will it be forced on players who do not want it. The answer, That would be a poor design decision.

    I understand people want to live in their little world of believing they are right, but that gets old when the truth hammer hits you and they still deny it.

    No it does not. He said clearly that he specifically cannot comment on it and then made the general statement that they dont make bad design decisions.

    That is typical PR BS that basically says nothing at all because there is no telling what they consider a bad design decisions. You can assume that he is referring to non consentual PvP but he has given him enough legroom to deny that later down the line.

    It's not typical PR BS, it's actually the smart answer.  The great unveiling is on Aug 2nd and any game cannot and will not comment on any design that will have people go raging all over the internet, and extreme n intense n ridiculous raging there will be when this hot topic is finally answered.  No one isn't going to confirm nor deny any game mechanics until they do their press release or whatever PR event that they reveal it in.

    What you just described is what I call PR BS, i.e. a statement that says everything but confirming nothing. A non statement.

    It is like asking about X feature and get response:

    We try not to make a bad game.

    It is a useless answer because who in their right mind would consciously make a bad design decision? No one.

  • jagd241jagd241 San Diego, CAPosts: 54Member
    Originally posted by Xssiv

     

    I have to disagree.   I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"

     

     

     

     

     

    What PvP servers have you been playing on?  Ganking, griefing and corpse camping lowbies is a pretty well known and long established practice and is why most PvE players don't like  PvP servers.

  • illorionillorion Beckley, WVPosts: 467Member
    Originally posted by Storm_Cloud

    I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.

    So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?

     

    You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?

    I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....

    "Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"

  • Storm_CloudStorm_Cloud MalmoPosts: 369Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by illorion
    Originally posted by Storm_Cloud

    I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.

    So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?

     

    You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?

    I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....

    LOL! Ok, I just have 3 questions.

    1. How's the health of the "open world" PvP in WoW.

    2. How long did it take until it ended up that way?

    3. How long will a server with 50 ppl remain alive?

    Because I'm a nice guy, I will give you a second chance to answer my question with these facts in mind. See how easy it is to find the right answer now? :)

     

  • illorionillorion Beckley, WVPosts: 467Member
    Originally posted by jagd241
    Originally posted by Xssiv

     

    I have to disagree.   I've been playing on PvP servers almost exclusively for many years and I don't know anyone who runs around looking for "easy targets"

     

     

     

     

     

    What PvP servers have you been playing on?  Ganking, griefing and corpse camping lowbies is a pretty well known and long established practice and is why most PvE players don't like  PvP servers.

    Thats the appeal for those of us who enjoy PvP. I enjoy the danger and the constant anxiety of a possible attack. I don't know if everyone just forgot or if maybe myself and the other players on these forums who are all for open PvP are exclusive in this belief... but these games are NOT hard... like at all... i can hammer out quests/events/dungeons in pretty much any game without so much more as a ho hum... its child's play.... the added danger of having to watch out for the "big boys" while you are doing it actually makes it entertaining and at least partially challenging.

     

    "Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"

  • illorionillorion Beckley, WVPosts: 467Member
    Originally posted by Storm_Cloud
    Originally posted by illorion
    Originally posted by Storm_Cloud

    I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not. Seems to me like you are picking a fight, and I'm not interested. Like I wouldn't be in the game unless, I feel like it.

    So, you have 2 choices. Accept a (temporary enemy flag) system like the one that was in SWG, and "sometimes" fight people who usually does not wanna PvP, or, get stuck on a pure PvP server where eventually, people will leave and you'll be fighting the same 50 ppl every day. What's your choice?

     

    You mean a temporary flagging system like the one in that game that died years and years ago and people know point to as a shinning example of "what not to do in a video game".... or a seperate server system... like the one in WoW... where some of the highest population servers come with watching you back at all times in case of danger... you know... the game thats over 10 years old and still has 10 million players?

    I would just rather they keep those players on a seperate server... so they can all play together and have an dandy old time. I personally like a little more excitement and stress in my MMO's... i like having to deal with people and their shitty habits... if i didn't then i wouldn't play multiplayer games....

    LOL! Ok, I just have 3 questions.

    1. How's the health of the "open world" PvP in WoW.

    2. How long did it take until it ended up that way?

    3. How long will a server with 50 ppl remain alive?

    Because I'm a nice guy, I will give you a second chance to answer my question with these facts in mind. See how easy it is to find the right answer now? :)

     

    1. Open world PvP in WoW is still alive and kicking last time i played... you get ganked... or do the ganking and it usually turns into a huge "everyone log of and log onto your main" 3 hour slugfest in southshore... hella fun.

    2. It's always been that way... since vanilla... again... southshore... the barrens.... stranglethorn vale...

    3. I played on emerald dream... its RPPvP... its still max pop...so yeah... if anything PvP servers last longer than PvE because there is still something to do when you've gotten bored with the themepark content... its called other players... Hence the MM part of MMORPG

    "Don't mistake a fun game for a good game... Checkers is fun to play but its not exactly the highest point of gaming design... and definatly not worth $60 plus $15 a month"

Sign In or Register to comment.